229 comments:

I suppose in an Orwellian sense, the Obama presidency should be refered to as "Little Brother". So, from here on out, I suggest we all drop the Dear Leader, The One, Super O, etc, and just refer to him by Little Brother.

You know, I don't think I've heard the term "orwellian" as much in my adult life as I have in the last six months and, frankly, Bush did some pretty scary shit all on his own.

The incoming President of the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) Dr. Anne Doing warned: “the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize…

“We know that there must be change,” she said. “We’re all running flat out, we’re all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands.”

The pitch for change at the conference is to start with a presentation from Dr. Robert Ouellet, the current president of the CMA, who has said there’s a critical need to make Canada’s health-care system patient-centred. He will present details from his fact-finding trip to Europe in January, where he met with health groups in England, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands and France.

His thoughts on the issue are already clear. Ouellet has been saying since his return that “a health-care revolution has passed us by,” that it’s possible to make wait lists disappear while maintaining universal coverage and “that competition should be welcomed, not feared.”

Why is a health insurance co-op a good idea? Is this yet another way of pissing about health insurance companies making a profit? Foolishness.

A co-op will need to meet the same standards of capital and reserves as any other insurer, and will have to make a profit in order to fund those reserves.

Think of the staggering capital investment required to form a health insurance co-op, nationwide, with tens of millions of people who want to become members overnight. The office buildings, the computers, the thousands of trained employees, the electronic infrastructure, the service contracts entered into with hospitals, clinics and doctors, not to mention pharmaceutical and equipment providers.

Now think of just how good the federal government is at setting up efficient business practices, rapidly and flawlessly.

Of course they know it's not just Republican opposition to the bill, but that's the talking point. Every sane Dem is against it. Nobody believes the "evil Republicans made made do it" anymore, do they?

Plus, the first millions of people into the co-op will be the ones who cannot get insurance elsewhere at a price they are willing or able to pay. Adverse selection will drive the co-op's premiums sky high.

And at the end of the year when the co-op assesses every member for a portion of the year's losses, then what?

So, it looks like President BarelyCare is an olympic level backpeddler. Whether he is doing this as a form of strategery to come back with another option will remain to be seen. However, his short term problem is that it will be viewed as weakness and if the conservatives don't pounce on this they will lose their momentum. It's a totally telegraphed stratagem.

WV = menspeo - You can pretty much come to your own conclusions on this one.

Political theater indeed. The White House/ media Axis are frantically having their stage hands jerking up one stage set and lowering back down another stage set to look as if nothing like Obama's crushing defeat at the hands of the Wasila Whack Job ever happened. We have been priviledged to watch the Cleaners in action since Sunday morning. I give them a well earned round of applause.

Now that the public option is retreating, I think it should be safe to point out that, structurally, there was a reason for it. A reason beyond the Democrats' hopes for a slippery slope down to single payer.

The bill, as structured, has massive indirect subsidies (estimated at about $700 billion, over ten years) for the health insurance industry, by subsidising individual purchases of health insurance. And the bill, as currently designed, is going to penalize individuals, if they don't buy the health insurance industry's product, and will penalize businesses even more heavily, if they don't buy the health insurance industry's product.

So essentially, the bill, as currently structured, redirects a massive flow of cash towards health insurers. If we look at higher education, with student loans, we know what that leads to -- massive price increases. The same thing happened with real estate, actually. Make it easier for people to buy things by extending credit or a offering a subsidy, and the prices explode.

The obvious solution, here, would be to cut the subsidies, but that would make a mockery of the Democrats' pretense of helping the middle class -- some people would be stuck paying a penalty tax, but still not have enough spare to buy the health insurance. And that wouldn't be fair. You could cut out the penalty tax (and in fact, the penalty tax is softened somewhat for the very poor), but if you do that, you can't pretend your bill will expand coverage to everyone anymore. The "public option" was a kludge, intended to help prevent the cost of health insurance from exploding too fast by establishing a competitor with artificially low pricing.

The bill without the public option, but with its misguided subsidy and penalty tax provisions is arguably worse than the bill with the public option. Opponents of the bill should turn their focus towards targeting the subsidy provisions much more narrowly on the destitute, who really may need the subsidy, and eliminating the penalty taxes.

The Democrats can pass the health insurance bill all on their own if they want, but then they will get creamed in the next election. If they can make it seem like it's a bipartisan effort, then it won't hurt them so badly.

I don't see why they don't just make up a plan to cover all the uninsured and the illegals, and pay for it separately instead of making everybody change their health care and insurance policies.

I think about 80% of Americans have health insurance and are satisfied with it.

The illegals and some others don't have it. Obama should just pass a health care plan for illegals and the few other uninsured people, and make the government pay for that smaller plan. That way he'd get the illegals' votes, once he grants them citizenship, and yet he wouldn't have to dismantle the entire health care system to achieve it.

I don't see why they don't just make up a plan to cover all the uninsured and the illegals, and pay for it separately instead of making everybody change their health care and insurance policies.

Honestly, I don't see why they can't do it with current Medicaid funding. On a combined Federal and State basis, I think we spend more than we spend on Medicare annually -- something like $400 billion versus $350 billion for Medicare. How is that possible, given that the Medicaid requirements set a low bar on income, and don't even cover all the poor? My guess would be that there's a lot more elderly covered by Medicare than poor people overall, and even basic maintenance care for the elderly is probably cheaper than most care for the poor -- even the poor covered currently by Medicare (e.g. children, pregnant women, etc.) Childrens' care is also supplemented, I think, by SCHIP, which is like another $50 billion. This is a lot of money to be spending annually. Where is it all going?

Michael Hasenstab said... Why is a health insurance co-op a good idea? Is this yet another way of pissing about health insurance companies making a profit? Foolishness.

A co-op will need to meet the same standards of capital and reserves as any other insurer, and will have to make a profit in order to fund those reserves.

Ihave done all my auto, home, and liability insurance business wth a Co-Op for 35 years. The isurance is cheaper, the management is a known quantity,and the customer service is excellent. BTW Moody's loves them. Each year I get dividends if costs are less than revenue.

Founded in 1922, to serve Mlitary Officers, USAA paid out $6.2 billion in dividends and rebates to its members in 2006.

Michael, if I were in the market for an individual policy, and they sold them, I'd go to USAA in a heart beat.

Because then the plan would just be about providing health care to those who do need it.

The goal now, however, is only secondarily about health plans, and more about power. The poor always suffer when the goal is power, especially when the poor are used in the pursuit of power.

No power is handed over, then the poor are told they will just have to wait, and suffer, and die until they have enough gumption to fight the greedy capitalists and make them hand over all the power to the wise leaders of hope and change.

The poor are tools.

And that's the saddest thing of all. Most everyone hates the poor. Watch out especially for the powerful who say they're for the poor, but won't give up power or position or perks for their supposed friends.

Other than curtailing The One's plans for single payer gov't health care, abandoning the public option brings the disappointment of votes lost for Democrats.

Think of it. Employees of a giant bureaucracy controlling, eventually, 8-10% of the economy. Add them to the Teacher's Union, SEIU and other such and the Dems wouldn't even have to send ACORN into the prisons to register convicted felons anymore.

Obama also believes (somewhat in contradiction) that it's a policy of insurance companies to deny coverage wrongfully in order to increase profit.

Obama does not understand how for profit competition leads to both efficiency and innovation. He has zero experience in the private sector and his attitude to profit ranges from indifference to hostility.

Obama never managed anything until he became President. He now manages, but badly.

Obama has clearly stated that he favors a single payer system.

Do not believe that they are giving up the "public option," which flows philosophically from these various limitations in his experience and false beliefs. However they dress it up, they want the federal government to control health care.

Obama doesn't have to give up on the public plan and he's not going to. Obama will say that the public plan was never essential, so it wont count as a defeat if one isn't included in health care reform legislation.

His opponents, and the press, simply haven't been buying into this story. THAT is the problem Obama is trying to deal with. He's trying to not take the hit when the public plan doesn't pass.

The really strange thing, probably a rookie mistake, is that he took ownership of HR3200. It is the House's bill, not his, but he keeps referring to "my plan" thereby claiming ownership of all of the crap that is in that bill.

A more experienced politician would have referred to it by it's name and deflected the blame for anything bad back onto the House, insulating himself from criticism.

I propose they instead spend their time on reducing the LITIGATION costs of health care- medical malpractice litigation is exploding. Egged on by greedy lawyers, plaintiffs sue at the drop of a hat which drives OVER TREATMENT.

One of my friends just dropped from medical school with 1 year to go- the reason? He began to see that he was learning very little about Medicine and a whole lot about "how to not be sued" that is a shame. Should doctors be held accountable when they mess up- you bet- should I have to pick up the bill on the chance that they MIGHT mess up or because they way over test to "be on the safe side"? Doctors believe patients will be less likely to go to a lawyer if they think the doctor did everything possible—even when doing so doesn’t help the patient or causes harm. Statistics back this up. The top reason for malpractice payouts involves the failure on the doctor’s part to diagnose a disease.

Online and in person, doctors talk openly about this defensive medicine. “We practice defensive medicine so often, every day, all the time, we aren’t even aware we are doing it,” says Robert P. Lindeman, M.D., a Natick, Massachusetts, pediatrician.

REDUCE LITIGATION DIAHHREA- that is a big step in the right direction. Not the only step but a big one.

Protesters to Bush: You are going to bankrupt the country, you're passing debt to our grandchildren, you're spying on Americans, etc., etc. You CAN"T DO THAT!

Bush to protesters: Oh, yeah? Watch me!

Protesters to Obama: We don't want socialist medicine, you want to kill grandma, you are creating a spying program where neighbors can turn each other in, we don't want government-run healthcare!

Obama to protestors: OK, what do YOU want?--NOTHING!--OK, then...

This is the difference between Republican and Democratic administrations--Republicans don't give two shits about public opinion (or the public good, for that matter), no matter how insane their ideas are. Democrats crumble at any sign of opposition--no matter how insane (and it is insane).

Pox on both your houses!

And BTW there absolutely no benefit to the plan even if there is one extra Republican voting for it. NONE. It is completely irrelevant. The GOP has no interest in fixing the health-care system in the US--they've been fighting hard for the past 20 years to break it, why would they want to fix it? By the late 1970s, education and health care were the last two large swaths of government regulated (and, in part, operated) public service that was yet to be privatized--or, at least, open to significant profit-making. Health care was first, with first insurance going completely private and for profit, then hospitals turning to for-profit clinics and other services to squeeze profits for investors and directors. When this was tried with education, it became a miserable failure (Edison Schools?).

So, when the insurance companies refuse to switch you over to a new plan when your COBRA runs out (18 months after you've been laid off--and that's if you can afford to pay $1000 a month for the plan) or when you spouses insurance policy falls victim to recision, or when the insurance company decides that grandma's cancer treatment is experimental and is not covered, don't come crying to the Democrats--you're libertarian and you'd don't want the government telling insurance companies how to treat people as people and not statistics (never mind that COBRA was already a concession).

I looooove USAA. I couldn't believe my husband wasn't doing his banking with USAA, even though he had his auto ins with them. It was almost a condition of marriage that he move all his finances to them. :)

45 million Americans without coverage

They are not all Americans. Many are illegal aliens and no, I am not too concerned if they have health insurance. If they want medical care, they can pay cash or go home.

class-factotum, by your "logic" you don't care about Americans not receiving health care if there are also illegal aliens not receiving health care.

Not what I said. Just correcting a misstatement. I do not care to pay for medical care for illegal aliens (of course, we already do) BECAUSE they are illegal aliens. It does not follow that I wish to see my fellow Americans cut off.

How many AMERICANS are without health insurance or without access to medical care?

Enough on what you're AGAINST. Please explain what is it about the current health care system in the US that con's like so much?

This is silly argument. We don't have to argue that the current situation is great or that we like it, just that it's better than the alternative on offer.

I'd be open to a reform that

(1) adopted the health insurance exchanges; (2) mandated uniform disclosure standards for health insurance policy coverage (which may, for all I know, already exist), but not uniform coverage (contra the House bill); (3) overruled some state regulations hobbling the development of a national market in health insurance;(4) mandated disclosure of hospital pricing schedules, including the hospital's "base" or "list" price, the medicare price, and the pricing schedules negotiated by their largest private payor (to help with price discovery in the market for health care); and(5) limited medical malpractice recovery.

That's not what's on offer, so the fact that I'm broadly in favour of that kind of a scheme (until I see the details, and the CBO tells me how insanely expensive it would be, I suppose), but that matters not a whit, since Obama has zero interest in hearing anything from outside.

I know that. What I'm telling you is that the Senate Finance Committee has 13 Democrats and 10 Republicans on it. 13 is more than 10. Therefore, the Finance Committee is not 50/50 like you said it was.

Dude, I've come to respect you a bit over these last few months as I take a breath and read what you are trying to say. Mostly you are pissed at the "conservative" or "Republican" views and how sometimes everyone espousing them seems to be ignoring the inconvenient facts or problems of the conservative side.

What I'm asking though here is for you to tell us what you think should be done in the case of Health Care. What are the MAIN issues that you feel should be dealt with (uninsured?, public option? guaranteed portability?)? And what do you suggest might be a solution, even if you like someone else's.

I promise to not mock your answers even if I disagree with them. but I'll bet 2 things:

1)We probably agree on more issues then most people think.

2)You have some reasonable ideas that deserve serious consideration.

You're a bright person - that's not flattery - it comes through in your writing even when snarky.

Gee, thanks, Chase. Yeah, I'm getting pretty pissed at the abysmal level of debate in this country. And at seeing people go to rallies armed with weapons.

My priorities:

1) Cover the uninsured so they can have preventive care.

2) Regulate the health insurance companies so they must provide health care to those they cover (i.e. not have corporate bureaucrats "get between you and your doctor" or deny care because of some error on Form stroke-7-dash-yadda yadda)

3) Create a system where medical care is no longer the Number One cause for bankruptcy for the American people.

4) Create a system where seeking health care makes people better, not causing more stress and delayed treatment.

5) Create a system that takes focuses first and foremost on health care delivery, not making some executives richer.

6) It must have a national public option. In too many states there is monopoly control in health care "markets."

Stuff like that. I'm not ready to write up a manifesto and have to get back to work anyway.

A lot to agree with there, ShadowFax. for example, the Senate Finance Committee working on health has had a 50/50 partisan split, despite the VOTERS sending up 60/40 split.

But, as I said, the SFC's composition is 13 Ds and 10Rs for Democrat percentage of 56%. This is the part you don't seem to understand...you're bitching about a 50/50 partisan split on the SFC when your guys actually have a 3-vote majority that's perfectly consistent with your 60/40 Senate majority.

Basically, if the healthcare bill sucks, it is entirely on the Dems. There is no excuse.

This is silly argument. We don't have to argue that the current situation is great or that we like it, just that it's better than the alternative on offer. .

But conservatives are not arguing about the current proposal. They're just making shit up.

There is no serious proposal for a "government-run health care system."

There are no proposals for "death panels." etc..

Every criticism I have seen come from conservatives applies to the current system in spades. Republicans are making deeply dishonest arguments (which Althouse applauds). ------------

p.s. Ronald Reagan also predicted nearly 50 years ago that Medicare would end freedom in America. Those very talking points are being recycled, with no embarrassment, by con's today. Was Ronald Reagan right? did Medicare end freedom?

The meme that insurance companies routinely deny care is utter bullshit. I'm 47 and married. I've never been denied care. Nor has my wife, my children, my parents, my siblings, my friends. I've been struggling to remember anyone I know being denied medical care and can't. In the local news, the cases discussed are almost all about experimental procedures. Do some people get health care denied? Yes. But it isn't as common as many here and in the administration make it out to be.

Interestingly, I have declined medical care for myself and on behalf of a very premature child and know other people who have, including my grandmother in her waining years.

Furthermore, I fail to understand the logic of this assertion anyway. If you place no limits whatsoever on medical care, overall costs WILL rise. It is economically impossible for them to do otherwise.

Finally, why the assertion that if you don't have medical insurance (i.e. prepaid medical care) then you may as well drop dead? I've gone years without insurance and paid for my medical expenses out of pocket (including CAT scans, x-rays, stitches, emergency room visits and even a child birth.)

When I was in my late thirties, I added up the total cost of medical care for myself, my wife and children since we were married (I had no medical expenses from 18 to 23, so there was no need to go back that far.) I then added up what the total cost of my various prepaid plans were or would have been had I been fully covered the whole time (this means not only employee contributes, but the employer cost as well.) They were a wash (it included an ambulance ride, a premature birth, a c-section and several other non-trivial medical expenses.)

But you do not ask WHO these people are very much (you had to go look up the number of illegals ...). Agaian -- some of those uninsured are young uninsured who chose NOT to be uninsured. Others are also uninsured by choice for other reasons, some economic, some not.

Some are uninsured as they are betwen jobs and elected not to use COBRA. (Idea: Now maybe unemployment also ought to include some kind of catastrophic / accident coverage?)

But the real pitch is -- if you are so concerned about 10 or 20 million (??) people who are uninsured, why not figure out what to do about that instead of trashing the whole healthcare and insurance industry so what -- the Won can put a feather in his hat and show how he community organized the United States of America (against many people's wills) into mutually shared mediocrity?

Hey, BJM! Care to show anywhere in the current proposals where "single payer" is ever mentioned (outside of Medicare)?

Opponents of the bill should turn their focus towards targeting the subsidy provisions much more narrowly on the destitute, who really may need the subsidy, and eliminating the penalty taxes.

Balfegor, don't you get it--opponents of the bill don't want any bill. They are perfectly happy to sink all efforts and blame liberals for being "ineffectual". All attack points are decoys--no one is going to make grandma die, no is going to spy on you, no one is giving government control over medical records, no one is sending nurses to brainwash your kids. It's make-believe--the goal is to shut down all debate and pretend that nothing is wrong. Why do you think the "protesters are just screaming and yelling and complaining and none of them are proposing anything meaningful? Because they want "government to stay out of Medicare"! RIGHT!!

The Democrats can pass the health insurance bill all on their own if they want, but then they will get creamed in the next election. If they can make it seem like it's a bipartisan effort, then it won't hurt them so badly.

Kirby, this is nonsense! If Dems pass the bill quickly enough, and people realize that their lives have not changed for the worse because of it, it will have no impact on the next cycle. Think same-sex marriage in Massachusetts--after a couple of years with no sky falling even conservative legislators gave up the ghost.

I think about 80% of Americans have health insurance and are satisfied with it.

The first figure is roughly accurate--it may be closer to 85%. But it only applies to having insurance. But it has absolutely nothing to do with being satisfied with the options. Case in point, MA, RI, NH insurance options are largely similar--HMO plans have no deductible and cost about $1400 mo per family ($800 in 2000) and have broad coverage at 100% as long as you pay the co-pay (which went up from $5 to $15 to $25 over the past six years). Some options differ from plan to plan--some cover physical therapy (with varying limits), some include unlimited mental health maintenance (while others give you four visits to a counselor and demand forms that prove improvement before agreeing to pay for more). But, overall, they similar, as long as you use facilities that are approved by the plan (not necessarily their own clinics--just must be on the list). When my wife and I worked in different states, we had to switch to a different plan--it was about $700 mo and covered 80% of most expenses. No extras though--no vision, PT, or any other options or alternatives. That plan now is over $1000 mo per family, but still at 80% with co-pay and $2500 deductible. In Wisconsin, family plans started at $700 mo (in 2005) with $25 co-pay, $5000 deductible and 70% coverage. If you wanted to go up to 80%, costs and deductibles would go up as well. There are no 100% plans in WI.

The problem is that, even though there are a number of HMO and other insurance companies nationally, locally we have mostly regional monopolies. That is, over 60% of the population has minimal choice in coverage. And 15% have no coverage. So, do the math and figure out how many may actually be satisfied with their plans. And, no, these numbers do not include "illegals".

If Palin can cause all this havoc from her Facebook page, will she be next be directing Predator strikes from her Twitter feed?

It's not Palin, it's FreedomWorks and they are paid with insurance companies' dollars.

However, his short term problem is that it will be viewed as weakness and if the conservatives don't pounce on this they will lose their momentum. It's a totally telegraphed stratagem.

Lose momentum? How can a lodestone lose momentum?

Obama's left-wing policies are like a virus and the Tea Party movement is the nation's immune response.

That would be true if you like auto-immune disease.

Obama does not understand how for profit competition leads to both efficiency and innovation. He has zero experience in the private sector and his attitude to profit ranges from indifference to hostility.

Wow! This is so profound! Apparently, David has zero experience in reality.

I propose they instead spend their time on reducing the LITIGATION costs of health care- medical malpractice litigation is exploding. Egged on by greedy lawyers, plaintiffs sue at the drop of a hat which drives OVER TREATMENT.

Patty, are you aware that this blog is being run by a lawyer? Besides, if we are to believe David, the market should correct itself so that it is efficient and innovative. Never mind the fact that you are simply repeating a myth that has little basis in fact--medical costs are not increasing any faster in states without award caps. In fact, it is the opposite. Besides, if you want socialist medical care (as opposed to socialized medicine), go ahead and abolish all malpractice torts. Remember, Tom DeLay was all for award caps, except when he sued over the medical treatment of his own father. At that point, he wanted no limit--classing NIMBYism.

Yet another lie.Republicans have no power.

Paul, apparently you are not ver familiar with parliamentary procedure. Being a dead weight requires no actual power. It's much easier to gridlock everything than to pass successful legislation. Republicans are exceptional at the former--but no good at the latter.

It cuts both ways. The problems with the government plan are a) expenses will go up and b) it's the government. You may trust the government, I don't.

Not passing a health plan right now isn't going to bring the country to a halt. I suggest the federal government first start by fixing the Indian Health Service. Next, pass tort reform. Next, change how drugs are patented and how those patents are renewed. Reduce the number of prescription drugs and behind the counter non-prescription drugs. Look at ways to deregulate the system and provide competition. Only then start looking at ways to provide basic medical care to those who need and want it, but can't otherwise afford it.

That said, making in criminal for anyone to NOT purchase medical care is unacceptable (and unconstitutional, but that doesn't seem to bother those in power, which is very disturbing in its own right.)

Alpha Liberal, the problem is that you are simply making up bullshit. Insurance companies simply don't routinely deny coverage. It is a lie.

If you wish to prove me otherwise, it is your burden to provide proof. You can't. Insurance companies do deny some things, most of which are outlined in the policy you sign, but they don't deny coverage routinely (and capriciously.)

Heck, site your own circumstances where you were routinely denied medical care. Please. I'm listening.

1) Those who believe the words with the simplest one dimensional meaning possible. Ohhhh. WE care about people. All these people in such great want in this awful capitalistic uncaring selfish nation need our help.

2) Those who know what the words really mean.

Conspiracy? No. I am a mental health professional who has hung around social workers, state employees, the "helping professions" and the like for years. You know, those occupations which Mrs. Obama encouraged everyone to pursue instead of that filthy 'making money' gig. You're more noble if you are in the helping professions. Ha.

Social science is full of Orwellian crap. Definitons are critical. And very fluid in the doublespeak culture.

That's what we are responding to.

President Obabma wants a single payer Federal health care program.

He has said it in his own words, and acknowledged it would have to be implemented in steps.

The people of the United States are saying "Hold your horses, sir."

And where are the thousands of uninsured protestors demanding coverage? The ones I've seen sure look like Union put ups. And they have insurance.

You know what? I am one of the 20 million "uninsured" and I am demanding that the Federal governemnt stay out of my medical and healthcare life.

There is no serious proposal for a "government-run health care system."

The President himself used to be pretty open about the fact that he wanted a transition to single-payer, i.e. a government run system. And Barney Frank has also admitted that he sees single payer as potentially transitioning to single-payer. It's not like this is a huge secret here, and arguments against the bill that take into account the slippery slope are perfectly legitimate.

Furthermore, even setting aside the prospect of single-payer, the House and Senate bills could both be fairly characterised as, in effect, a government take-over of health care. Read the bill. In the House bill, which I've read more closely, the bill requires that every insurance plan cover the same "essential benefits package," -- one which is hilariously overspecified in the bill itself, notwithstanding the fact that the details are to be worked out by an advisory committee of some sort. The benefits plan has to meet a "medical loss ratio" (look at secs. 116 and 161), beyond which it has to rebate the excess to its customers -- this appears to be a backdoor profit cap. And there's the stuff about the penalty taxes for individuals an employers if they don't buy a qualified health benefits plan, i.e. one that provides the "essential benefits package." Pricing of the insurance premiums is specified at sec. 113 -- not an outright cap, this time, but a limitation on the ways premiums can be assessed. I mean, the bill is just full of this junk. Page after page after page.

Sure, it stops short of outright nationalising the health care market, but it more than justifies rhetoric about this being a government take-over of health care. It's establishing an even tighter knot of bureaucratic restrictions around the primary payment and coverage mechanism for most Americans. That's close enough for the characterisation to be fair. It's like a regulatory taking, rather than the government sending bulldozers outright.

There are no proposals for "death panels." etc..

Sure, that's inflammatory. But no more inflammatory than the proponents of the plan toss around. And the general fear of some outside panel deciding who gets care and who doesn't is supported by the statements politicians (e.g. the President -- search for "chronically ill") have made in the course of the debate.

So, in event of fire, you don't call the fire department? In event of crime, you don't call the police dept? All that evil hated government.

In case you didn't notice, the fire and police departments are not run by the federal government. Even then, we limit the power of government, including the local government. The fire and police don't have unfettered jurisdiction. This has nothing to do with hate and everything to do with fighting the tendency for power to corrupt and for the powerful to become despots. Our founding fathers didn't hate government, but did fight a revolutionary war against the unjust use of power by government. They then attempted to set up a system of divided power, not out of hate, but out of a fundamental distrust of those who wield power.

So, let me turn the question back on you, why are you so eager to have government take over larger and larger portions of our lives? Why are you so eager to have functions heretofore provided by local governments moved to the state and federal level?

Seven Machos, the problems come from "conservatives." We have many in the Dem Party who are screwing things up. Mainly, ones from big rectangular and low population states with racially homogeneous populations.

Alpha -- Shouldn't the government just take over all of the means of production? After all, as you point out, they have the military, the police, and the fire department. Why not health care, too? And food and tourism and movies and everything else?

Has anyone ever done this in some other country in history? How did it work out?

Please provide the text from the bill that establishes "death panels" for babies and senior citizens?

You might start by looking at the text that was removed in response to the "death panels" rhetoric.

Call it what you like but it boils down to "the government decides who lives and who dies."

Right now, you say it's insurance companies deciding that. I say it's individuals who can decide what companies to use--except to the extent that, once again, the government prevents them from doing so.

Government drives up the cost by mandating certain kinds of coverage. It drives up the cost by making it tax-exempt, but only for certain employed individuals. It drives up the cost by setting prices and dominating the market.

And then it says, "Oh, look how costly this is! No one can afford this! Let us help!"

("And, just coincidentally, we'll know everything about your medical history, be able to force you to do whatever we deem is healthy, use our IRS goons as enforcers, and tax you within an inch of your life--which we'll now be running.")

Yeah, it's just those craaaaazy Republicans (that no one agreed with anyway) obstructing progress.

So, Alpha, you mean to tell me that all the evil Republicans could vote against a bill and it could still pass? Is that your belief, now that you have done the proper arithmetic?

If only these Democrats in these sparsely populated states would vote against the interests of their constituents. Then you could have the massive government takeover you desire. And surely it would work without shortages.

If only everyone would just listen to their intellectual betters, we could all have free health care without any shortages or denial of treatment. Because government is so efficient and always flush with cash.

Sadly, we are stupid and racist, and what's worse we live in sparsely populated areas. All of us.

Hunh. Why all this distrust and hatred for the government is interesting.

are you a child? government is rountinely corrupt, here and elsewhere, now & in the past. and even if they aren't corrupt, they might be a hyperpartisan like you. sorry, no, you don't get to be in charge of my health.

are you a child? government is rountinely corrupt, here and elsewhere, now & in the past. and even if they aren't corrupt, they might be a hyperpartisan like you. sorry, no, you don't get to be in charge of my health. .

seems to me the demonstrators, while vociferous are demonstrating peacefully--not so the SEIU who beat up Mr. Gladney whose sole crime it appears was selling american flags at a rally.. Now clearly Alpha and his ilk are willing to overlook thugs who carry truncheons to voting places but seems to believe violence at town meetings has been bloody. The only blood spilled are by liberal asshole and their running dogs.

Fuck american liberalism-its day is long gone and its supporters are morally bankrupt.

Alpha -- Please provide your evidence that people from homogeneously populated states cannot understand less homogeneous states. Please provide your evidence that the people who bring guns to demonstrations are not peaceful. Please provide your evidence that a government takeover of the means of production in health care will not lead to shortages.

Alternatively, since you cannot, please stop asking others to document their beliefs.

You are the smartest person here. I'm sure you can see the disconnect.

you're a moron AL. my city council is on trial for influence peddling. my congresswoman's children work for the government or organizations that are government funded. California has 1000's of retirees that gamed the system like mobsters. it's a running gag for government employees to sue their employer. why don't you google Randall Hinton, the most typical government employee in history. it's routine. and no, I don't have to business with any corporation, a distinction you are not intelligent enough to grasp.

ShadowFox, what the fuck does your comment have to do with anything? The assertion is that insurance companies ROUTINELY DENY medical coverage. That is a lie.

Initially, I decided to forgo the obligatory "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'". But I see I put too much stock in you.

I could post hearing results from the US Congress and you would say that's just Democrats.

Beat you to it, Alpha. I was hoping for a choice between "a fool and a knave". Looks like we got both in one.

Rescission is recognized practice. "Routinely" is conveniently vague. The point is that both "rescission" and "unapproved treatment" denial occur with people who can generally afford the rejection the least.

Another point of "routine" medical decision is treatment of the supposedly "indigent". Hospitals routinely turn away patients who cannot afford to pay for the service, telling them to come back when they actually need emergency services. This is simple enough math--preventive visits may cost less, but the hospitals are only obligated to open up ER and will be covered for services by--you guessed it!--the government. What it means to the actual patients is irrelevant in this calculus. And, of course, Joe does not know anyone to whom this might have happened because, well, they are not his crowd. It must be nice to be Joe!

The left is truly in some kind of delusion right now. It's hilarious. You have a 20-seat majority in the Senate and a 50+ seat cushion in the House.

7, I know you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but are you suggesting that Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman are "the left"? Ross and Murtha are "liberals"? Of course, if you think anyone not to the right of you is "on the left", I should pity Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater.

Except in Memphis, New Orleans, California, Detroit and New Jersey governments are NOT corrupt--Incompetent, yes--corrupt no. If we want health care to managed by the same idiots that run medicare, then by all means sign up for it. I will take my chances elsewhere.

Look how smart Alpha is, everybody. He has spotted a straw man that no one else can see and has shrewdly used a masturbation metaphor to belittle me.

I wish I was as smart as Alpha. And as worldly. If only I lived in the middle of one of the largest and most diverse cities in the world, I could understand how the government is going to be able to give away free health care without having shortages.

The thing that I find striking is, after years of debate about who is uninsured, Alpha discovers that the figure trotted out by the liberals is included illegals. That is breathtaking in its stupidity and ignorance--debate is fine, but when one party is so malinformed, there isnt even a starting point.

Call it what you like but it boils down to "the government decides who lives and who dies."

Blake, are you completely delusional or just dishonest? The point of request for the text was that you would not wave your arms around and just repeat the nonsense but to actually cite the text that is so problematic to you. Simply ignoring the question and repeating the allegation that has not been proven does not solve the problem.

Damn that Republican Lieberman! He's always voting against the government takeover of the means of production. And those other Republicans who secretly ran as Democrats from rural states filled with know-nothing rubes.

I get it now. Sorry. You are right. I'm an idiot. I thought the Democrats had huge majorities in both Houses. But now I see. I wish I was as shrewd as you, Shadow Fox. I wish I could see these deceptions.

Please provide your evidence that people from homogeneously populated states cannot understand less homogeneous states. .

I did not state it as fact but opinion. Or, maybe just a simple concept. They are not in the habit of representing such diverse populations. So they are not likely to be good at it, especially when it comes to the complex health care problems from large urban areas.

Please provide your evidence that the people who bring guns to demonstrations are not peaceful.

The presence of their arms. Weapons are not needed at peaceful rallies.

Please provide your evidence that a government takeover of the means of production in health care will not lead to shortages.

Your language, not mine.

Yeah, let me type up 1,000 well-considered words so the wingnuts can just say "will too." I decline to waste my time.

"I did not state it as fact but opinion. Or, maybe just a simple concept. They are not in the habit of representing such diverse populations. So they are not likely to be good at it, especially when it comes to the complex health care problems from large urban areas."

DARN good reason to avoid unnecessarily concentrating power on the Federal level then, don't you think? Problems should be addressed as close to "home" as possible so that they are dealt with by those with the best understanding of local conditions.

Shadow -- Generally speaking, it is the side that wishes to change the status quo that must convince.

You are so much more brilliant than the silly rubes who believe that a government takeover of health care will lead to massive shortages in the best-case scenario. I'm sure you are sick and tired of having to explain to us little people.

But those are the ground rules in political debate.

Of course, political debate must seem like a trifling thing to you. Why should you have to explain your glorious vision of the future to these backward hicks?

As far as I can tell, that was not the point. Their representatives don't have to consider the issues that are of lesser interest to their constituents--fuck the country if your constituents are not unhappy.

Please provide your evidence that the people who bring guns to demonstrations are not peaceful.

Again, you perverted the question. Best I can tell, Alpha asked why one needs to bring guns to supposedly peaceful rally, not why those who did were not peaceful.

Please provide your evidence that a government takeover of the means of production in health care will not lead to shortages.

I see, offering more insurance options constitutes "government takeover the means of production". You're three for three , 7. Like I said, not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Maybe he just forgot. I used to have a concealed carry permit and quite often I would just forget to take the gun out of my satchel or handbag until I was already at an event or out to dinner. Oooops.

Again, we are forced to play the game "delusional or dishonest". Why don't you try to hide an AR-15 in your purse, dear. Than get twelve of your friends to do it.

it might be worthwhile to review the terms of the health care issue--so far all the liberals have said is some amount of americans lack health care insurance--of course that conflates health care insurance with health care which is not true at all. The liberal side points to life expectancy and infant mortality to suggest out system is bad--in that, they only expose their ignorance of epidemiology. Are there any substantive arguments over and above those that might be useful to discuss?

Well, try to bring a billy club, a switch-blade or a Taser to a rally and carry it openly. Then see how long you last. Why is it that firearms should get preferential treatment? Does the second amendment say anything about firearms? (Note: some state constitutions are far more specific on this point.)

"BTW, the Department of Defense is also the government. Do you have the same distrust for them?"

The DOD is very carefully and thoroughly *prohibited* from operating in the domestic sphere.

I wonder the heck *why*?

I've spent time inside the DOD and gave up quite a few of my constitutional rights to do so.

Don't talk to me about the DOD being an example of the Federal government being welcome in our civilian lives.

"A lot of conservatives supported warrantless wiretapping on the American people - by the government."

A lot of conservatives supported warrentless wiretapping of foreign originated communication that bounced around satelites and over US borders without having to determine before hand that yes, indeed, an American citizen was not making that call.

A lot of other conservatives pointed out the extreme hypocrisy of Democrats who suddenly CARED when they had never cared before. It stunk of opportunism. And as we see now PROOF that it was... not a PEEP about Obama asking people to report their neighbors to the government.

The lies are like animated sludge crawling across the floor.

"A lot of conservatives want to have the government deliver Christian teachings."

Such as? What? Having the GALL to ask that the state not suborn their religion when they've delivered their children to the keeping of the state?

"A lot of conservatives want the government to regulate our person sex lives and tell us who we can sleep with, marry and what birth control we can use."

Abortion isn't birth control and I defy you to find a conservative who wants to know what you do in bed.

"That's all quite odd. I thought conservatives don't trust the government? Why do they want to keep using it so much?"

Some conservatives are Statists. Just like liberals. It's a sad thing. They're probably out there right now *supporting* the health reform bill in any (who really cares anyway) form it takes.

Why don't you try to hide an AR-15 in your purse, dear. Than get twelve of your friends to do it.

Well, darling, I certainly wouldn't put an AR -15 in my purse and I do agree it is a bit much to carry around on my shoulders. My blouse would get wrinkled. Even carrying my Mossberg Persuader with pistol grip would be too cumbersome. I would go for light and more modest 380 semi automatic handgun in public.

So are you of the liberal mind bent (on purpose) that gets the vapors at the thought of guns? Open carry is legal, you know, in many States.

I see, offering more insurance options constitutes "government takeover the means of production".

Also, sweetums, I think you need to look up the definition of insurance. What the government plan offered was not by definition insurance and their plan would severely limit the ability of insurers to generate new policies...particularly high deductible catastrophic only coverage, which is what many people really only need.

there does seem to be a few questions on the table that our libtards havent responded to:1) how many people have been physically assaulted at a town hall meeting-answer: one Mr. Gladney by the SEIU who are in Obamas pocket

How many people use HSAs and other forms of self insurance to take care of their personal needs? This relates to the question of the total number of "uninsured" Answer: none

Other than the number of uninsured in what other areas is American health care inadequate? Silence

Please tell us libtards how a debate can even take place when you can't even say why the system is bad?

So are you of the liberal mind bent (on purpose) that gets the vapors at the thought of guns? Open carry is legal, you know, in many States.

Oh, schnuckums, I don't inhale the vapors. Guns don't bother me in the least--took pistol and archery as PE requirement in college, among other things, and used to shoot at a range as a kid. But some people with guns definitely bother me--like the ones who think that they need to bring a gun to a policy debate (and encourage others to do so as well).

I always thought that the ultimate irony would be a shootout at an NRA convention.

..."government takeover the means of production".

Also, sweetums, I think you need to look up the definition of insurance. What the government plan offered was not by definition insurance and their plan would severely limit the ability of insurers to generate new policies...

Well, honeybunch, perhaps you can explain to us how the "non-insurance" policy created by the bill takes over "means of production". Whatever you may think of the proposed bill, it covers a form of risk management--whether you call it insurance or not. "Means of production" it is not--by any stretch of imagination.

hey shadow fox--where has gun violence occured in any town hall--how are you with SEIU beating up on Mr. gladney? How are you with obama thugs carrying night sticks to polling places and having justice drop the prosecution?

Your acquience in these miscarriages of civility and justice speaks volumes for you moral bankruptcy.

I did not state it as fact but opinion. Or, maybe just a simple concept. They are not in the habit of representing such diverse populations. So they are not likely to be good at it, especially when it comes to the complex health care problems from large urban areas.

Best I can tell, Alpha asked why one needs to bring guns to supposedly peaceful rally, not why those who did were not peaceful.

One obvious motive could be that Obama's supporters sometimes beat the shit out of their political opponents at these "supposedly peaceful rallies". :)

Also, it is a little silly to say that "one side brought guns". Obama's side brought guns, too; do you think the police and Secret Service were unarmed? The relevant question isn't which side(s) had weapons, but which side(s) used them inappropriately. Neither did, so where's the problem? The sight of a gun might make YOU wet your panties, but normal people don't act that way.

Other than the number of uninsured in what other areas is American health care inadequate? Silence.

Oh, I wouldn't say there's silence. Actually, the President has been quite vocal in identifying the fact that Americans pay a lot more than people in other countries for their healthcare, but don't seem to be any healthier, as a problem:

Last point I would make, just to give you a sense of why I know that we can get savings in the system without over the long term spending more money. We spend about $6,000 per person more than any other industrialized nation on Earth -- $6,000 more than the people do in Denmark, or France, or Germany, or -- every one of these other countries spend at least 50 percent less than we do, and you know what, they're just as healthy.

The President has got his statistics completely wrong as usual -- he's clearly not much of a numbers person -- but the gist of what he is saying is correct. We do spend a lot more on health care than people in other countries, with no improvement in our health outcomes. And many people do think this is a problem.

It might be so very easy to post a comment on this article except for the fact that the subject matter seems to wander all over the place, except for AL who proclaims his love for all who oppose his views on life, love, gun ownership, gun carry, peaceful assembly, appropriate role of government in running our private lives, etc...

Still, the banter seems delightful, if not a bit boring from time to time.

Of course, in some ways, this posting has been educational in examining the views and attitudes of the American Socialist rabble rouser, masquerading as a knowledgable soul; although one without such a soul and in fact more like a useful idiot.

Actually, the President has been quite vocal in identifying the fact that Americans pay a lot more than people in other countries for their healthcare, but don't seem to be any healthier, as a problem:

That is a stupid stupid argument. Of course we pay more for our health care than some other countries. You know WHY? Because we use more health care, receive more services.

It would be like saying Americans pay more for food than people in Zimbabwe. Of course we do.....we have more food. We have better food and we have the ability to pay for it.

If you want us all to be the same and eat the same as Zimbabwe or have the same health care as Zimbabwe...YOU go for it. I'm just fine with the idea that the American citizen spends more.

HEALTH CARE is not the same thing as HEALTH INSURANCE. A very important point that, many including the idiot in the White House, are missing, refuse to see or are just too stupid to see.

Could our system be more efficient and perhaps cost less? Could we figure out a way for the high risk people to be insured. Of course. But completely destroying current health insurance and going with a massive and destined to be over budget and under efficient socialist system....isn't the answer.

And what is the number one reason that we get more services? Often services that we don't need?

Malpractice law suits. If the government would institute tort reform, the doctors would not have to practice defensive medicine where they do every procedure invented to avoid being sued......the costs would come down.

Naturally, we can't have that because the politicians are vapor locked on the asses of the trial lawyers and in their pay with lobbiest groups.

If we're going to give insurance to all the illegals why don't we just give medical insurance to the entire world? And why not give it to fish, and dogs, and bacteria? Everyone should be protected equally or else our hearts are not big enough! Let's insure butterflies and whales and porpoises. Let's insure the Chinese since they are making all of our products! Let's redistribute money from the human species to all other animals, so that every worm on every continent is worth as much as every American citizen. Until we do that we haven't reached equality.

What's that I hear? Someone is against giving AMERICAN money to the illegals, and to everyone else? That's not AMERICAN!

I always wonder if the "spending" by other countries includes the amount by which they go further and further into debt, trying to prop up their systems.

I'm pretty sure it does. I mean, it's a pretty straight number. There may be issues with inter-country comparisons, if one tally counts an expense as medical while another counts it as something else, but broadly speaking, the comparison is probably valid and accurate.

On the other hand, I don't think it counts interest payments on government debt, if that's what you mean. I'm pretty sure our totals aren't factoring that in either.

Of course you should be able to bring your billy club to a town hall. Also your throwing stars and your nunchucks. Bring all of your ninja gear, in fact. Because I'm sure all you brilliant leftists have got a ton of it sitting around.

We do spend a lot more on health care than people in other countries, with no improvement in our health outcomes.

Is that true? My understanding is that our cancer cure and survival rates are higher than Britain and other "model" countries.

Factored into this are things like we spend a lot of money on tiny very premature babies (who might be deemed less worthy by a panel as they often have ongoing issues which would consume more health dollars; not to mention their survival is discomforting for some).

America has a different culture, we have large areas which are not, um, homogenous. It's a bit like apples and oranges to compare.

In fact in the US there is a lot of money spent on people who cannot pay (or do not) which I think might not be spent in other "enlightened" countries.

For a laughable moment, let's take the European Union seriously as a political entity. Each one has its own health care system, many of which are socialized. But they are radically different in their socialization. Does it make sense for the EU to adopt a one-size-fits-all health care plan? If so, why doesn't it exist?

How about this, brilliant leftists: make this thing thing work in a state first. Make it work in one of your vaunted and diverse cities. Make it work on a small liberal arts campus. For five years. No shortages.

Then we can expand your brilliant plan to the beleaguered masses, with their two cars and their central air and their jet skis.

Despite a population that makes far from the best choices of diet and lifestyle:

The U.S. has the highest life expectancy when accidents and murder are adjusted out of the calculation. This is the effect of superior health care. Read it: http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/does-the-us-lead-in-life-expectancy-223/

The U.S. has far better survival rates for most cancers than any other nation.

The U.S. has substantially shorter wait times for most important procedures and much better access to advanced imagining and other diagnostics.

The U.S. produces the vast majority of new drugs and techniques used around the world. We also pay higher prices for them, subsidizing the other systems use around the world.

This is why we spend more and also because we can. Citizens in other nations have no choice to spend more and are stuck with what is cheapest.

The higher spending here also creates modern high end jobs rather than paper pushers created by nationalized systems elsewhere. This is why we drain many of the world's best and brightest away from their system to ours.

In short, we spend more to get more. I for one, do not want less when my life is on the line.

If you don't have health insurance, and you're out protesting against health insurance and you hurt yourself, you don't deserve any treatment. I mean, really. What a dipshit.

First of all, do you have any reason to believe that he hurt himself, as opposed to the commonly reported scenario that someone else hurt him?

Second, why would he not deserve treatment? I can certainly understand that he would not deserve government paid for treatment. But if he can pay for it himself, or someone else is willing to pay for him, why would he not deserve it?

The DOD is very carefully and thoroughly *prohibited* from operating in the domestic sphere.

Jesus!! Are you serious? Do you think that government running DOD only amounts to "operating" outside "the domestic sphere"? Ever heard of Duke Cunningham?

I disagree with Alpha here--DOD is probably one of the most corrupt and inefficient agencies in the US government. I guess, it's just the economy of scale--it's easier to make more money disappear if you get more money to begin with (and you have friends like Cunningham, Lewis, Doolittle, Hoekstra and Murtha).

But there are others--FAA, for one. Ever wonder why Reagan didn't bother just privatizing the air-traffic control system instead of firing the striking employees?

"A lot of conservatives want to have the government deliver Christian teachings."Such as? What? Having the GALL to ask that the state not suborn their religion when they've delivered their children to the keeping of the state?

Funny you should ask. Texas has mandated--starting this year--that public school teach Bible classes. Care to guess what will happen? Remember now, this has to be taught as a literature, history and social studies class, not religion. Should we start the pool on the first law suit date?

how many people have been physically assaulted at a town hall meeting-answer: one Mr. Gladney by the SEIU who are in Obamas pocket

Don't you mean that Obama is in the SEIU pocket? Get your conspiracy theories straight! And if you think that SEIU assaulted "Mr. Gladney", I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

The question is why you would think that anybody owes you any explanation whatsoever for doing something that doesn't hurt others and isn't even against the law.

Given that (1) this is not something that these people ordinarily do (can you imagine them going around every day with AR-15s over their shoulders) and (2) this was suggested in fliers and emails sent out by "organizers", yes, I believe, we are entitled to an explanation. If it's intended to intimidate, then it does hurt others.

But that's an easy question to answer: you are a statist, and it bothers you that people are permitted to do things you disapprove of.

If you think I am a statist, you really need your head examined. But, judging from the subsequent clause, you don't even know what a statist is.

Also, you are most definitely a statist. I just wish we could be as brilliant as you are. If we were, just think how great the world could be. Sadly, we all can't be the most dazzlingly intelligent person in the room. I guess your utopia will fail on account of us.

Also, it is a little silly to say that "one side brought guns". Obama's side brought guns, too; do you think the police and Secret Service were unarmed?

Oh, I see--police and Secret Service are "the other side"! Got it! I hope you have that cabin in the woods all planned out, complete with a bunker where you can duck and cover.

The sight of a gun might make YOU wet your panties, but normal people don't act that way.

Actually, brandishing weapons in the proximity of the President is likely to make you wet your head--with blood. Luckily for these idiots, they were far enough away.

That is a stupid stupid argument. Of course we pay more for our health care than some other countries. You know WHY? Because we use more health care, receive more services.

You're badly misinformed. I had a family member visiting from abroad (not a European country). When he was in Germany, he was paying $200 for a session of dialysis, including all incidentals. In a Boston hospital, he was charged $650 and they wanted another $1400 for a prescription medication--lucky for him, he brought his own supplies, carrying hypodermics through airport security. And scheduling a session was a pain because of, gasp, rationing. In Germany and in UK he just walked in when he needed service. Now, remind me again, who has socialized medicine?

Now, let's take a look at the market, for a moment. Medicare sets reimbursement rates--much in the same manner that the bill proposes it be done for a broader public option. Insurance companies "negotiate" reimbursement rates--and these largely end up similar to the Medicare rates, surprisingly consistent among different companies (in legal parlance, this is known as collusion). So who pays the "rack" rate? The poor schmucks who have no insurance and are not covered by Medicare or Medicaid. These can be 300% of the insurance-negotiated rate.

Want more? Insurance companies negotiate reimbursement rates for pharmaceuticals as well. These can be as little as 10% of the rate normally charged by a hospital (to the uninsured) or about 30% of the rate charged by an independent pharmacy. What happened with the last Medicare bill that Bush dragged through Congress? Republicans added an amendment that prohibited Medicare to negotiate pharmaceutical rates in the same manner insurance companies and the VA do. A proud moment to be a Republican, no doubt!

Oh BTW you pay the same rate at many US hospitals whether you receive more services or not. Do you know why? Because you're already paying for all those ER visits by those who are not fully covered. That's right--you pay for them whether government runs their risk management or not. But, because (1) they are forced to go to the ER and (2) their rates are three times as high to begin with, it costs us considerably more than it would have had there been a public option for them. Of course, you've never faced this situation because you're healthy as an ox--and just as thick.

The insurance industry is an *industry* and yes, that counts as "production".

How dishonest does one have to be to ignore the actual question. The initial comment was that Obama et al. propose a government takeover of "means of production in healt hcare". To wit,

Please provide your evidence that a government takeover of the means of production in health care will not lead to shortages.

"Insurance industry" is not in the "means of production" business in health care. They are in risk management business. Means of production are supplied by health care organizations--you know, hospitals and such.

Now, are you going to insist on your argument?

First of all, do you have any reason to believe that he hurt himself, as opposed to the commonly reported scenario that someone else hurt him?

By "commonly reported", do you mean repeatedly reported by Fox News? The guy's story is so completely inconsistent, it makes no sense. But if one has no insurance and needs to sue someone to cover medical expenses, why not pull a Tawana Brawley or a Chuck Stuart?

This is not unlike my experiences trying to get health care from the US Army Hospital at Fort Hood Texas, or the NHS Hospital at Banbury, UK.

...and, of course, you always get perfect service from the private sector! No doubt about it! You know--like the banking sector... or airlines... or... oh, never mind!

Also, you are most definitely a statist. I just wish we could be as brilliant as you are.

You nailed me, 7! Your keen powers of observation got me dead to right! Such a brilliant extrapolation from a sample of 1. Care to share with us your experiences with statist economies? Perhaps some large/small European country (never mind that nearly all the services in the EU have been privatized, even the postal service)? Ever been to one? How about a totalitarian socialist state? Ever had to deal with one directly? Lived in one? They are kind of hard to find, these days--China, North Korea, Cuba... er... that's it, I guess. Or was the closest you've come to one of those the State of Confusion?

Your mind's so sharp, you must have been educated under the Ginsu grant.

So you're saying that the Secret Service isn't on the President's side? That the police aren't on the government's side? What an interesting claim.

Silly me--I've always thought they were supposed to be on the side of public safety, to serve and protect... er... the public.

Neither the Secret Service nor the police are allowed to murder Americans just because they are carrying guns near a politician. I'm not sure why you'd think they were.

Let's just put it this way--if you're brandishing a weapon in the proximity of the President or another protected figure, don't make any sudden moves. It's hard to argue your rights after you've been shot through the brain stem.

You remind me of a smart-mouthed adolescent with an overly generous opinion of his own intellect and no idea what he doesn't know.

Yes, moron, the military is strictly prohibited from acting in the domestic sphere, by law. It's called posse comitatus, and posse comitatus exists for a reason.

Insurance companies DO have "products," you frigging moron. Generally, these products are called "policies," and they are marketed, distributed and sold through distribution channels no different than widgets.

People refer to "financial products" all the time, and people within the industry even occasionally refer to an insurance company "manufacturing" a new product.

Just because it's an intangible doesn't mean it's not "produced."

Now go on back to high school civics class, and stay there until you learn something, kid.

AlphaLib said Joe, it's not worth my time to find the evidence and serve it up to you.

Translation: I just make shit up out of whole cloth.

This is classic Alphaliberal. He always does this crap, just makes innane generalized comments and then tells you to Google it. See in his world the burden of proof is on you to say he's full of shit.

I agree with Joe. I would like to see where an insurance company is routinely denying coverage. Insurance policies are quite specific in what is covered and what is excluded. They have to be because it's a state requirement. If you're denied coverage for a specific procedure, pull out your policy, look at the exclusions page and then demand from the claims examiner to point out the specific exlusion the claim was denined.

I don't know of any HMO or PPO plan where the physicians are not contacting the company for pre-certification. I'd like to see specific examples of coverage that should have been paid for denied and if so, why it wasn't pursued as part of the contract. Yes, your insurance policy is a contract.

Funny you should ask. Texas has mandated--starting this year--that public school teach Bible classes. Care to guess what will happen? Remember now, this has to be taught as a literature, history and social studies class, not religion. Should we start the pool on the first law suit date?

I think that’s great. Seriously, you don’t think the bible has had a huge influence on western history, enough that people who want to be well educated might need to be aware of this? I think they should teach about the Koran too, if there are enough students interested. Why not? I know I learned Greek mythology in high school, which was a religion. I don’t think you should go through life ignorant of the major religions. And if it’s an elective, that's great.

And if you think that SEIU assaulted "Mr. Gladney", I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

And you think the guy with the SEIU shirt running away from the crime scene was what? A nun?

Seven Machos, the problems come from "conservatives." We have many in the Dem Party who are screwing things up. Mainly, ones from big rectangular and low population states with racially homogeneous populations.

America has a different culture, we have large areas which are not, um, homogenous. It's a bit like apples and oranges to compare.

I'm not sure why heterogeneity is supposed to drive health costs. True, if you have a sizable minority, it may be necessary to stock pharmaceuticals and train physicians for diagnoses that take into account differences between the races, but beyond a certain point, I'm not sure how much that matters. Whether its 5% or 15%, wouldn't the structural costs be about the same (I assume, of course, that different drugs and training cost about the same to implement, you just have to arrange for both)? And many procedures aren't really affected by racial diversity or cultural diversity -- an MRI works fine on you no matter what your race is.

Essentially, I can see why American care would be more inefficient and more expensive than, say, Japanese care, where 99.9% of the patients are going to be Japanese, and maybe Zainichi Koreans. But I don't see the mechanism by which "hetereogeneity" would increase American care costs over European care costs, given that basically all the big European nations have sizeable non-European minority populations, whether they're Turks or Maghrebin or sub-Saharan Africans or whatever.

On the other hand, the fact that America west of the Mississippi is basically empty and hugely spread out -- it looks like North Korea, on those satellite maps of the night lights of the Earth -- would drive costs up, since you need to set up facilities to serve all these little towns dotting that vast, empty landscape here and there, and I'd guess that would make care more expensive (and less effective) than care in more concentrated population areas. But it's not like American care in, say, the megalopolis stretching from Boston to Washington DC is able to keep costs down to European standards.

There are causes beyond heterogeneity and population concentration that drive our costs up.

Balfegor--I am not sure how much heterogenity adds to the cost. That said, from my standpoint as an epidemiologist, heterogenity is the explanatory factor when drolling libtard idiots trot out our life expectancy and infant mortality stats as "proof" that our health care system is inadequate.

Balfegor--I am not sure how much heterogenity adds to the cost. That said, from my standpoint as an epidemiologist, heterogenity is the explanatory factor when drolling libtard idiots trot out our life expectancy and infant mortality stats as "proof" that our health care system is inadequate.

Could you expand on that a little? I can guess at what the mechanism there would be, but better to hear it directly from someone who knows.

Balfegor--I am not sure how much heterogenity adds to the cost. That said, from my standpoint as an epidemiologist, heterogenity is the explanatory factor when drolling libtard idiots trot out our life expectancy and infant mortality stats as "proof" that our health care system is inadequate.

Roger, is it possible that it has a lot to do with culture? Heck look at diet, Asians generally have a high life expectancy over other races and I think it has a lot to do with their diet. African-Americans tend to eat very delicious but hardly nutritiously good food and their rates of obesity and heart disease are higher than whites or Hispanics or Asians. Then I think our overall diet in the US compared to Europe is abysmal just based upon obesity rates which in turn leads to other chronic illnesses. I’ve been to Europe and it is a damn rare sight to see someone who is obese and they generally turn out to be an American. You go anywhere in the US and you can throw a rock and have a 50/50 chance of hitting someone who is a biscuit short of 300 pounds.

So when the usual suspects like to point to Europe as evidence of better health care it’s not an apples to apples comparison because a good chunk of what ails us as a whole is by and large preventable through simple diet and exercise.

Our amusing friends Shadow and AL are clearly the kind of folks who say silly things when they get excited, and like a lot of liberals they gets excited when they have the unusual (to them) experience of hearing facts and opinions that contradict the One True Way of thinking that pervades the insular little bubbles they inhabit.

Shadow keeps talking about somebody 'brandishing a weapon'.

That term has a specific meaning. It means pointing or gesturing with a weapon in a threatening way.

Arizona is an 'open carry' state. Go in to just about any public place and you're likely to see someone carrying a pistol, or driving with a rifle in their gun rack. These law abiding citizens are not 'brandishing a weapon'.

I'm pretty sure it's not legal, and certainly it would be stupid to 'brandish a weapon' in Arizona absent a direct threat to ones own person or property.

The Obama supporters who brought their weapons to the venue were not 'brandishing a weapon'.

"Insurance industry" is not in the "means of production" business in health care. They are in risk management business. Means of production are supplied by health care organizations--you know, hospitals and such.

The Insurance Industry does produce policies that provide different levels of coverage for the risks that people would like to insure against. Those are called financial products.

Yes, they are not in the business of providing health care. That would be hospitals and doctors. You and Oblablah are aruguing two different things. Health insurance is not for health care. They are not the same thing. Actually, Zippy the Won wants to take over both the Health Care and the Health Insurance industries and run them just like the Post Office......into the ground.

In addition the current industry provides a wide array of products that people can choose between. If I don't want to pay high premiums for coverage of ordinary doctor visits and routine check ups and prefer to CHOOSE a lower premium and pay for those things out of my pocket.....that is MY CHOICE'-------'note the word.

The insurance company will rightly limit the items that it will pay for and limit the coverage to those who have risk. Meaning those who are not already sick. RISK------- another word you might want to look up. If I'm not sick now, there is a risk that I might get sick later. If I'm already sick....there is no ------risk. And I am therefore uninsurable.

When we go to a government run program of health CARE and private insurance companies have been squeezed out of business and the bulk of the country is now relying on a DMV type of government office with Sally Satchelbottom deciding who gets to be 'waited' on and who gets coverage, there WILL be rationing. We will have no choices.

Well, except for the wealthy, the politicians and the Unions who are exempted from the government run health CARE plan and will be allowed to have their OWN special coverages.

The socialist leftards WANT to destroy yet another industry and take over even more control of our lives.

If your bleeding heart is all about those who can't get insurance, like my husband, and those who are too poor to get insurance yet are not so poor that they can get the FREE welfare program of Medicaid, then do something about that. Just leave the rest of us alone who are able to have insurance at the levels we need and want.

Balfegor, Hoosier and Dogwood--I can only speak as an epi guy. The US has a very diverse population and epi only works when you compare LIKE populations--for example, compare mexican american health outcomes with those in mexico--like numerators and like denominators.

It is unfortunately true that homicide rates among blacks, and the terrible state in native american health lower our aggregate life expectancy. And as Hoosier has pointed out, our cultural differences lead to different life styles among differing populations.

From an epi standpoint you have to correct for these disparities, and the ignorant fools who think an aggregate statistic means anything are only describing their abysmal ignorance.

Balgefor--I think you have hit on a pretty significant thought re health care cost of differing populations--you are going to drive me to pub med (the authoritative source of health care info) and have me look that up.

Dogwood has identified some significant factors that tend to reduce our life expectancy in the aggregate; eg, we have enough income for most americans to be able to drive, and we are large nation that requires more driving. Like duhhh--that means more accidents and regretably more fatalities.

The simple recitation of meaningles stats by the drooling libtards like alpha and shadow fox only expose their ignorance, and in so doing, diminish our ability to seek solutions and find common ground.

I would link to the video to show you real life actual union thugs in SEIU T shirts (dumbshits) beating up people, but I'll just take a page out of your book and say...use google.

How does a weapon help you win a debate?

Geee I dunno. It seemed to work for the Black Panthers threatening people and wielding billy clubs outside of polling places during the election. They are also on video, but for some unexplained reason they ALSO are given a pass by the media and the administration.

I'm going out on a limb here....it is because the thugs that are FOR Obama get a blind eye and the little old ladies who are against him are terrorists.

I would link to the video to show you real life actual union thugs in SEIU T shirts (dumbshits) beating up people, but I'll just take a page out of your book and say...use google. .

Oh bullshit. You know I have posted hundreds of links here. You actually don't have anything to post. I think I've seen the video you claim shows someone being beat up and it shows nothing of the sort.

But, hey, prove me wrong. Show us this video.

then you cite Black Panthers from 40-fricken years ago! You sound like a small child caught behaving badly who says "well, Billy did it!"

I think I've seen the video you claim shows someone being beat up and it shows nothing of the sort.

Yes of course. It doesn't show a black man being tossed on the ground by your union thugs. It doesn't show your union thugs threatening other bystanders around. It doesn't show the union thugs being arrested by the police.

Google Voter Intimidation Black Panthers Philadelphia....if you can type that many letters.

"According to one bystander, a Republican poll observer, interviewed by Fox News,"Black Panthers" Intimidate Voters in Philadelphia the "Black Panthers" made their intentions very clear:

"We got a phone call that there was intimidation going on. I walked up to the door, two gentlemen in Black Panther garb, one brandishing a nightstick, standing in front of the door. They closed ranks as I walked up. I am a veteran; that does not scare me. I went inside and found poll-watchers, they said they had been here for an hour — I went inside and found poll-watchers, they said that they had said not to let people outside because black people are going to win no matter what. At that point, I spoke to him, we would not get into a fistfight, I said, and I called the police."

The police arrived and escorted the "Black Panther" with the nightstick off the premises."

Now your excuses will be "Oh. but they weren't real Black Panthers..blah blah blah" Walk like a duck, talk like a duck, dress like a Black Panther Marxist and wield a night stick. ....conclusion....Black Panther's intimidating people at the polling place and they get a pass from the Obama administration.

How about we have people dress in KKK outfits and stand outside polling places and see how much of a pass THEY will get.

Ya got nothin, DBQ. Those videos do not show any "beatings", as you falsely claimed.

In one case, a woman (do women often beat people?) pushes back on a camera in her face. You claim that's a beatnig.

In the other case, the film starts with a guy on the ground and a bunch yelling. No blows but just accusations. Have the police filed charges? THEN an SEIU person walks up - WITH A CANE.

And you call that a beating? Really? Lose credibility much? --------As far as the "Black Panther" excuse, we also had right wingers with weapons outside of polling places in Arizona last November and demanding citizenship papers of any brown-skinned people showing up to vote.

It is wrong for ANYONE to bring weapons to a polling place, Presidential event, or political rally is wrong to do so. Anyone.

But, let me guess, you think it's OK when a right winger brings weapons to rallies and polling places, but it's not okay if a person is not a right winger.

Hey, gang, leave AL alone! His psyche is fragile and needs to be stoked with bedtime stories about Poppa Obama! Gee, if more of you needle AL, it'll inflame AL's frailness. AL's going to cry and that's not a pretty sight. Poor baby, AL's got rough enough as it is without the rest of us ganging up on AL as he and his few minions help eachother get across the street of life's misery.

This example of Republicans bringing guns to polling places to intimidate non-whites is from 2006:

On Election Day, a posse of three men in Tucson, Ariz., proved that the Wild West still lives.

The group, which was three strong, and allegedly composed of two anti-immigration activists, Russ Dove and Roy Warden, carried a camcorder, a clipboard -- on which, they said, was information about a proposed law to make English the state's official language -- and a gun. While one man would approach a voter, holding the clipboard, another would follow, pointing the video camera at them. The third would stand behind, holding his hand to the gun at his hip in what activists on the other side called classic voter intimidation tactics in a precinct one local paper had previously declared the bellwether of the area's Hispanic vote. .

As far as the "Black Panther" excuse, we also had right wingers with weapons outside of polling places in Arizona last November and demanding citizenship papers of any brown-skinned people showing up to vote.

So now who is the little baby with the waaaaahhh they did it first excuse.

It is wrong for ANYONE to bring weapons to a polling place, Presidential event, or political rally is wrong to do so. Anyone.

No, it isn't.

Leaving aside that you don't apparently have any objection to cops and bodyguards - and possibly some congressman - packing heat at the same events, there is nothing "wrong" about ordinary people carrying means of self-defense, unless you think it is immoral to defend yourself.

If people are being threatened, weapons brandished, etc., that would be wrong, but that's not what we're talking about here.

(1) adopted the health insurance exchanges;(2) mandated uniform disclosure standards for health insurance policy coverage (which may, for all I know, already exist), but not uniform coverage (contra the House bill);(3) overruled some state regulations hobbling the development of a national market in health insurance;(4) mandated disclosure of hospital pricing schedules, including the hospital's "base" or "list" price, the medicare price, and the pricing schedules negotiated by their largest private payor (to help with price discovery in the market for health care); and(5) limited medical malpractice recovery.

Actually, I don't have problems with most of these, and if this were what was being proposed, I could probably be brought around to support it.

However, keep in mind that one of the big problems with national coverage is #5, medical malpractice. One of the big differences between prices of health care (and thus health care insurance) is the cost of malpractice litigation - both direct, as for example, the cost of malpractice insurance, and indirect, in the form of excess testing.

Shadow fox--so Mr gladney was not assulted by SEIU thugs? that your story? you sticking to that? you are long on bull s**t and short on answers--typical libtard

Love your epithets--some wine just does not improve with age. I watched the video--did you?

I would link to the video to show you real life actual union thugs in SEIU T shirts (dumbshits) beating up people, but I'll just take a page out of your book and say...use google.

Well, since we are still on the same subject, did you notice that the guy on the ground--and the same guy who is rubbing his injured shoulder is wearing... gasp... an SEIU shirt? And Gladney is being pushed back to get off him...

Yes, moron, the military is strictly prohibited from acting in the domestic sphere, by law. It's called posse comitatus, and posse comitatus exists for a reason.

Jason, you miserable douchebag! The military is indeed prohibited from "acting in the domestic sphere" when it comes to military actions, but this is not what I was talking about and this is not what anyone would ever say constitutes as "operating" the DOD. Much of the "operations" is bureaucratic, including procurement and analysis. All of this is certainly done domestically (except for the trivial matter of supplying foreign bases). Or did you miss the reference to Duke Cunningham and his posse who went to jail for wrongfully awarded contracts with the DOD (in other words, bribery and influence peddling). Before calling someone a "moron", get your bearings straight, so that you don't look like a complete idiot.

Yes, they are not in the business of providing health care.

Do you hear the crickets? You could have ended with that line right there. This was the only contention that was in dispute--thanks to 7's stubborn insistence that "providing health care" was the issue. As for the rest of your comment... oh, look, a bird!

Shadow keeps talking about somebody 'brandishing a weapon'.

Yes, I know what "brandishing a weapon" means and I used it in that very sense.

It is not about need, it is about freedom.

Really? And I foolishly thought it was about affordable health care. Silly me! Apparently some people just can't get it through their thick skulls that not every argument is about the Second Amendment. And when one shows up to a discussion of issues with an assault weapon, it is easily interpretable as an act of intimidation and threat of violence--as, of course, it was intended.

Really? And I foolishly thought it was about affordable health care. Silly me!

No, not silly: Idiotic. As in "useful idiot".

Make up your damn mind: Is it about forcing the 47M to get insurance--many of whom don't want it, and could rightfully see this as an encroachment on their freedom to NOT have it, or is it about "affordable health care"?